Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Well, maybe he sees that his current path is not actually getting anywhere. Maybe he is getting tired of the build up of bunk and has finally decided to clean up the act. I know that if I were him and saw Dane Wigington, Russ Tanner, and Tankerenemy insisting there are no identifiable commercial planes I'd be fairly pissed.
  2. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    They all seem to forgive each other and even themselves, mistakes on any number of details because they are sure that the "big picture" they are painting is correct.

    PS: It's like arguing with fundie Christians. No matter how many contradictory details or errors you outline in their "Holy Book" it still always comes back to them believing it's still the "Word of God".
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. JFDee

    JFDee Senior Member

    I really, really strongly doubt that putting people in boxes, post after post, is in any way helpful here, true or not.
    Can't you see that it's essentially wall-building - instead of opening up this place?

    Why not use the rant corner for posts like this?
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Ross Marsden

    Ross Marsden Senior Member

    Every time I see a photo of "40 or 50" trails and a halo around the sun (or parhelia) I am reminded that only ice, and ice of a certain shape, can do that.
    That is your remote sensed trail sample experiment right there.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. PCWilliams

    PCWilliams Active Member

    I wouldn't debate without written ground rules. Each side has timed responses, one question at a time, that sort of think. Otherwise it could quickly deteriorate into a Gish Gallop (<- me new phrase) - not by Mick, but by Max.

    I also have concerns this is a publicity stunt. Max talks about a debate and talks and talks, then at the last minute backs out - pointing at, and blaming, MetaBunk in some way. Conspiracists need bad guys, and MetaBunk would fit the bill. I guess i feel this way because i can't see why he would want to do this. He doesn't have the facts on his side. He would be walking into a buzz saw.

    My $0.02 :)
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    It helps to understand why hoaxes like this are being perpetuated. It helps to outline the mindset which is behind it and how to approach those with such a mindset. It helps to understand that it doesn't work to approach it as if the people involved will see things in the same logical way that you do.
  7. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    Logic and belief are often on opposite sides of any coin . . . one must always realize when a coin is flipped which side comes up to win the toss is random and Chemtrail advocates are just as likely to use one side or the other at any time without warning . . .
  8. JFDee

    JFDee Senior Member

    If you need to discuss and define such a mindset, then I suggest you don't do it in a public forum where this kind of talk is likely to make visitors feel denigrated.
  9. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    I can understand that. On the other hand, keeping it a secret as to what fuels these hoaxes (and how 'cult-like' they actually are) might not always be productive.
  10. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Perhaps, but it's very easy to slip into over-generalization, like "they all..." or "they are sure that...". Who are you talking about? You are are only talking about people who fit the description you are talking about. So it's pointless, and will insult people who get swept up in the description.

    Unless you can be specific about who you are describing, then "they all..." is not useful. People believe in chemtrails for many different reason, and at many different levels.
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2013
  11. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member


    How can Max's overture be genuine? He has expressed utter contempt for Metabunk as being part of the intentional coverup.

    Well, maybe he sees that his current path is not actually getting anywhere. Maybe he is getting tired of the build up of bunk and has finally decided to clean up the act. I know that if I were him and saw Dane Wigington, Russ Tanner, and Tankerenemy insisting there are no identifiable commercial planes I'd be fairly pissed.
  12. TWCobra

    TWCobra Senior Member

    Max has finally come forward with his "evidence" that RH levels at cruising altitude are too low to form contrails: Thus;

    As expected Max has no idea about what Relative Humidity actually is.

    The definition:Relative humidity is the ratio of the partial pressure of water vapor in an air-water mixture to the saturated vapor pressure of water at a prescribed temperature.

    The key words there are "prescribed temperature".

    For those unfamiliar with RH, air can hold water as invisible water vapor. The warmer the temperature, the more water vapor can be held in any given parcel of air. The amount of water vapor in the air, compared to the maximum it can theoretically hold is called RH and is expressed as a percentage.

    At 100% RH the air is saturated with water vapor, and condensation into visible water begins. (this also explains the gap in contrails behind aircraft engines, as hot exhaust air rapidly cools, the water vapor contains reaches saturation levels and condenses to form the contrail.)

    Max, has failed to take into account that cabin air is at least 70C warmer than the outside air, so the same air coming from the outside, with say 50% RH, will have a much lower RH inside the cabin as soon as it warms up. That is what the R in stands for. The same cubic metre of air could have an RH of 60% outside the aircraft; then have an RH of 5% inside and after it is expelled and rapidly drops 70C, will go back to its former 60% plus whatever moisture it picked up from the people in the cabin. (this also explains why in some photos, small contrails can be seen from air conditioning outflow valves positioned at the back of aircraft.)

    Some people think that the prescribed temperature is the temp of the air. ( I used to). The RH, as seen from the definition above is actually based on the temperature of the water itself, which undoubtedly has implications for contrail formation.

    In the link provided, an old newspaper article is featured. This is an example of poor research as Max has homed in on a quote that says that contrails only form in a narrow band. (most days this is probably true). Max is trying to make an issue of the amount of contrails seen above his house in France, which is at the crossroads of some of the busiest air routes in Europe. Reading the rest of the article confirms everything about contrails, however Max ignores that bit.,5247238
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2014
    • Like Like x 4
  13. TWCobra

    TWCobra Senior Member

    An example of differing RH values in a small space. Fox put up a video of a Qantas A380 landing at LAX and causing a bit of localised fog around the aircraft, primarily over the wings.

    As the aircraft approaches the RH would have been approaching saturation level (100%) for the temperature at the airport. That can be seen from the cloud bank below it.The condensation begins as the aircraft sinks into the wispy bits of the cloud bank. As the A380 goes into the flare manoeuvre (raising the nose to arrest the rate of descent just prior to landing) more lift is generated over the wings and hence the pressure over the wings drops. This causes a temperature drop to the temp that saturation occurs, called the Dew point, and a local cloud forms over the fuselage as well as over the wings. The air is warmed and it slows down as enters the exhaust area behind the aircraft, the RH drops and the condensation reverts to water vapour.

    This warm-colder-warmer process is the reverse of the situation described in Max's reference, but is a great example of localised RH changes.
    • Like Like x 3
  14. TWCobra

    TWCobra Senior Member

    Max still doesn't understand the concept. This video addresses me directly and I have answered him. I am not holding my breath for a retraction though.

  15. cloudspotter

    cloudspotter Senior Member

    I like the bit where he says the air from outside has to go through an air con unit because it's so cold and then in the next breath goes on to talk about relative humidity. :D
    • Like Like x 2
  16. cloudspotter

    cloudspotter Senior Member

    Max has posted a Flightradar24 screenshot and has on the face of it done a fairly thorough job of it by including (what could be) a photo of the plane (impossible to tell for sure) and radiosonde data for the area from what appears to be three hours earlier although the date and time aren't included on the Flightradar24 screenshot.


    However if we look at the full data from the radiosonde and the ones immediately before and after we can see that there is an issue with the data stream.

    We can also see from the comment in the bottom left corner that Max doesn't understand the variability of conditions or the role of relative humidity in contrail formation despite the fact that he is using the cabin RH to prove that contrails shouldn't be forming. Very mixed messages.
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It's very unfortunate that most radiosondes don't really work for humidity at contrail temperatures. The erroneous low readings make it easy for people to claim contrail should not form. Maybe Max could have a look at this:

    This graph being the most telling:

    It's an example of the same conditions measured with three types of radiosonde humidity meter. The red line is the most accurate (actual) relative humidity, the green and blue are what most radiosondes report. Where it crosses the dashed line (ice saturation) is where contrails persist.
    • Like Like x 2
  18. Ross Marsden

    Ross Marsden Senior Member

    Some radiosondes do not transmit any RH data when the temperature is below -40°C because of the poor (dry) values sensed.
    These instruments measure temperature with a thermister which is pretty accurate.
    The moisture is sensed in terms of RH by a thing called a "humicap" (I think). Vaisala of Finland supply most of the world's meteorological services with this equipment, but the French use a different supplier, and I think you will find no French mainland or dependency (Tahiti, New Caledonia, others?) radiosonde stations giving RH at temperatures below -40.

    So it's not so much an issue with the data stream; there is no RH data for temperature below -40°C by design.
    • Like Like x 2
  19. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I wish they would do that for the US stations, it seems like over 90% of them just give essentially random low readings below -40
  20. captfitch

    captfitch Active Member

    • Like Like x 2
  21. hemi

    hemi Active Member

    I was wondering what that equipment would look like, and how soon it might work its way onto the chemtrail forums as further proof of spraying apparatus, but, from the following video, it might be a bit of a stretch to finger this as an aerosol-delivery mechanism (although, maybe not)...

  22. cloudspotter

    cloudspotter Senior Member

    I did wonder about three faulty ones in a row but they do indeed all cut off at -40. Add to that the fact that the plane is descending and it makes it even tougher to tell the conditions the plane was flying through.
  23. Ross Marsden

    Ross Marsden Senior Member

    Right! I forgot to include that observation (the plane is descending 4000-odd feet per minute) in my post above.
    • Like Like x 1
  24. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    Well I think it is encouraging to see Max will accept some official data. It is clear he accepts Met Office (or le weather place as we think the French say) data especially given MI5 have hidden an island off the African coast. It seems a little sloppy cover up work. How does this fit in his narrative?
    • Like Like x 2
  25. Ross Marsden

    Ross Marsden Senior Member

    1:56 "... securely ..." Hmmm; I don't think that data is going to be publicly available.
    There is a bit of a problem with presentation of data like that - arbitrary location, altitude, time.
  26. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    Off topic but I think a system like that may be preferable for the Met Office. Radiosondes partly caused £25 grand of damages over a 3 year period one even smashing a car windscreen
    • Like Like x 1
  27. Joe

    Joe Senior Member

    Hmm ? A private airline working with the Government ?
  28. Ross Marsden

    Ross Marsden Senior Member

    ... working with another company and a government agency.
    What's the problem with that. Is NOAA supposed to act in an economic, cultural and scientific vacuum?
    • Like Like x 2
  29. Ross Marsden

    Ross Marsden Senior Member

    I know. Those radiosondes are one of the "dirty little secrets" of the meteorological observation system.
    In New Zealand, decades ago, a sheep farmer in the Canterbury High Country what hit by one of these while out riding his horse... twice! At that time the things were the size of a shoe box.

    These days they are about the size of 2 pack of smokes. It is the Cu/Zn wet battery that is causing the damage. The rest is polystyrene, cardboard, wire and a PCB. Then there is 60 metres of tough string, a simple parachute and a shredded latex balloon, and maybe an Al-foil and balsa radar target. The US and Europe must be littered with them.
  30. Met Watch

    Met Watch Moderator

    You'll get the occasional farmer out there who might run into one of those things here in the US, with a tag on it saying where to return the radiosonde what I've heard NOAA doesn't get a whole lot of them back. That adds up when you're doing it at over $100 a launch, at least twice a day, from several dozen stations...

    But I digress.
    • Like Like x 1
  31. justanairlinepilot

    justanairlinepilot Active Member

    The same company put them in our Saab 340 aircraft under Northwest Airlines. They did the study on behalf of the NASA through the National Weather Service to help the weather models collect data at lower levels. The Saab 340 is a prop aircraft and doesn't get too high...(17K..ish). Funny, however, they work broken a lot. The equipment was useful when it worked, however.
    • Like Like x 1
  32. TEEJ

    TEEJ Senior Member

    Max still peddling the low flying planes in his videos. Filmed on 16th January 2014. We know that he has access to Flight Radar 24 apps so why does he not provide the evidence that this aircraft has been caught 'spraying at low level' ?

    01:00 Max states "That plane was so low it's ridiculous!"

  33. cloudspotter

    cloudspotter Senior Member

    That plane was so low it was a dot. Does he think they're using RC planes now?
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  34. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Max seems to be falling for a common optical illusion. Close to the horizon does not mean "low", it means far away.

    Here I've stitched together some frames from the video, so you can see how this illusion arises.

    • Like Like x 4
  35. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    Yes, I have seen chemtrail believers talk about "vertical" trails. I'm sure it's just that the trail is passing directly over them from the horizon.
  36. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    There's that "nano" word again.

    nanoScreenshot (759).
  37. TEEJ

    TEEJ Senior Member

    Max at it yet again with the low aircraft claims in his recent video. He has a good old rant about Metabunk and Contrail Science, but I think he gets mixed up yet again with units stating that the aircraft is at 6,000 metres. I think he actually meant feet. In other videos he has then down to a few thousand feet.

    In the description he states

    We know that Max has access to Flight Radar apps so there is no excuse in not using them when he is making these videos. Clearly he knows he can't "catch them in the act" at low levels with the FR24 apps so he resorts to the old rant of 'low plane' in his videos. Here he is using the apps in the past.

    The first airliner in the first video is a Boeing 777 of LAN Cargo. Registration N778LA. Flying at 29,000 feet.

    The second airliner is a Boeing 737 of Royal Air Maroc. Registration CN-RGJ. Flying at 37,000 feet.

    Playback facility will be available for about 30 days.,0.38/12
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 2
  38. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I think Max is applying a bit of a double standard there for "unmarked planes"

    Contrail Plane: "Can we see any markings on that plane?" (implying there are none)
    No-trail plane: "Difficult to see the marking at this distance"

    Here's his video:

    And the actual plane (Thanks @TEEJ !)

    You can see all the markings you would expect to see - the greyish blue tail, and a blurry registration number. Maybe a slight hint of the word "cargo" on the pilot's right side (blurred and blown out).
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2014
    • Like Like x 2
  39. Gary Cook

    Gary Cook Active Member

    It is a sham so many people get stuck on chemtrails. there are other more insidious things like blatant government violence. Even if chemtrails were true the direct violence would be worse. I guess those on this forum could genuinely claim they are just reacting to the data being presented by chemtrail theorists.

    there has been documented chemical weapon testing so I would not put it past government to be poisoning us but I would agree it is likely to be on the scale that people like Max say it is.

    Do these planes admit residue from burning fossil fuels that is harmful?
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  40. TEEJ

    TEEJ Senior Member

    No problem, Mick. No doubt his spies will be informing him that it is confirmed as a cargo plane? Cargo of 'chemtrail tanks' ;):rolleyes:
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.